My parents’ generation used to believe that a devilish con-trick had been played on them by Germany.

They would look with envy on their world-beating productivity, prosperity, living standards, even football teams, sigh, reflect on sickly Britain, and ask: “Who won the bloody war , anyway.”

Although I never bought into it, as the years passed I realised defeat in 1945 had brought Germans one huge slice of luck – being excluded from permanent membership of the UN’s Security Council, alongside the so-called superpowers of America, Russia, China, France and Britain.

It meant, unlike us, not feeling obliged to enter every global conflict, living the lie that we were still the policeman of the world, when we were distinctly part-time specials.

Moral blackmail: David Cameron has been pressuring MPs into backing him (Image: Getty)

David Cameron, like Tony Blair before him, appears to have an almost messianic desire to lead us into battle. He says we have to join in the Syrian civil war because “our allies need us”. But since when has that alone been a compelling reason?

During Suez, the USA diplomatically opposed Britain and stayed neutral during the Falklands, a war in which France supplied weapons to our Argentine enemy.

France also stayed out of our recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, because they knew at least one was immoral and both were unwinnable. Russia just does what suits them.

Conflict: French planes return from strikes against ISIS (Image: Getty)

Cameron has tried to morally blackmail MPs into backing him by claiming they’re faced with a stark choice of being the bulldog Churchill or the appeaser Chamberlain.

But what about the pragmatic Harold Wilson who refused Lyndon Johnson’s pleas to send British troops to be slaughtered in Vietnam?

Did our decision to stand on the sidelines then, like the French and Russians in Iraq, diminish our standing?

This rush to take part in one of the most complex civil wars the world has seen – when we’re unsure who our allies and enemies are, we don’t have a clear objective, we can’t rule out a long ground war, we have no plan for the aftermath, we don’t know if our extra bombs will make a positive difference or if they will spawn more jihadists – is fraught with danger.

Pragmatic: Harold Wilson kept Britain out of Vietnam (Image: Unknown)

We still haven’t heard the findings of Chilcot’s report into our disastrous intervention in Iraq, the chaotic aftermath of which helped create IS.

More worryingly it seems we are being fed exaggerated information (70,000 rebel troops ready to attack and defeat IS under our air cover) to persuade us into action, just as we were back in 2003.

After Paris I understand why many people feel like bombing the hell out of ISIS. But surely our recent Middle East wars have taught us we need to be certain of our objectives.

It can’t be about bombing for the sake of it. It can’t be about declaring war simply to justify keeping our seat at that top table.

Video Loading

Video Unavailable

Click to playTap to play

The video will start in 8Cancel

Play now

Surely, after the lies of Iraq, the least the British people are owed is honesty. We need to be told if joining this war is more about bolstering our national self-esteem than our security.

I’d admire Cameron if he admitted he’s desperate to send in the bombers because he doesn’t want to feel like a powerless wimp when the UN ambassador passes round the Ferrero Rochers to Obama, Putin and Hollande.

Because at least then, when we start bringing home our troops in body bags, we’d know why.